Re: Is Levi-Strauss essential? was It still works? Avoid it anyway.
Pedro Dias (firstname.lastname@example.org)
17 Jan 1997 00:31:39 GMT
Rijk van Geijtenbeek (email@example.com) wrote:
: Rick Cook <rcook@BIX.com> wrote in article
: > My impression is that Levi-Strauss was important for his pioneering
: > rather than because the theories he put forth are still accepted in
: > Kind of like Marx for most economists.
: I don't know much about Levi Strauss, but I'm certain that most
: economists don't see Marx as a pioneer in their field anymore. Those who
: did nowadays like to forget that thought.
Actually, they did and do, unless the whole pinko thing causes such an
automatic panic response that they fail to acknowledge their indebtedness.
His insights into the relationship between labor, capital and value
changed economics forever. He may not have been correct, in that his
theories eventually failed to prove predictive, but he most certainly was
seminal. No one except Adam Smith even comes close.
As far as Levi-Strauss is concerned, his influence is probably less
central to Anthropology. He was a dazzling idea-juggler, but ultimately he
failed to convince. He did leave the field more open to the discussion of
the possible universality of certain archetypes, u.s.w.